Martha v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVS.
268 P.3d 1066
Alaska2012Background
- Martha and William are parents of six children; Andy (12) and Allie (8) are the subject of this CINA petition and ICWA case.
- OCS had a long history with the family, including substantiated reports of domestic violence and prior CINA and delinquency adjudications for older siblings, and the family resided in Fairbanks, Alaska.
- In October 2009, concerns escalated after Andy attempted self-harm at school and both children were taken into emergency custody following troubling incidents and allegations; Allie disclosed sexual-relevant concerns during therapy.
- Andy and Allie were placed outside the home; Andy received inpatient and residential treatment; Allie underwent counseling for sexual reactivity, with multiple professionals involved.
- OCS framed a case plan; Martha and William largely refused to participate in services beyond visitation, and William was hostile toward OCS staff, including threats and assaults.
- In October 2010 the superior court adjudicated Andy and Allie as children in need of aid and ordered custody outside the home for up to 18 months, with ongoing professional treatment noted as necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of out-of-state expert testimony | Van Doorninck’s testimony admissible despite no Alaska license. | Licensing required to practice psychology in Alaska; expert testimony should be excluded or limited. | Admissible; Alaska licensing not required for expert testimony under Rule 702. |
| Admission of Allie’s statements to Bridgman under 803(4) | Statements were hearsay and improper for medical treatment; scope limited. | Statements admissible as medical diagnosis or treatment; relevant to treatment of sexual reactivity. | Admissible under 803(4) as statements made in treatment for diagnosis and therapy. |
| Admission of Ringstad’s testimony | Harms from present sense impression error; inadmissible. | Testimony relevant to safety history; harmless error given other evidence. | Not necessary to decide; any error deemed harmless. |
| Use of prior CINA/juvenile records | Judicial notice of prior cases improper. | Prior findings supported by live testimony; proper context in adjudication. | Court did not err in relying on prior cases and juvenile records. |
| Active efforts under ICWA | OCS failed to make meaningful efforts to prevent breakup of Indian family. | OCS offered services; parents refused; active efforts were made to help the family. | OCS made active efforts; parents’ noncooperation justified the conclusion. |
| Best interests and risk of harm if returned home | Parents capable of protecting children; risks overstated by experts. | Expert testimony shows continued risk; treatment outside home is necessary. | Return to parental custody would be contrary to welfare and likely cause serious harm; adjudication affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pravat P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing ICWA claims and sufficiency of evidence)
- Handley v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 615 P.2d 627 (Alaska 1980) (no licensing prerequisite for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- In re A.S.W., 834 P.2d 801 (Alaska 1992) (admission of child statements under residual hearsay in CINA)
- Wilson W. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 185 P.3d 94 (Alaska 2008) (imputed conduct in parental decision to protect children)
- Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 188 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2008) (reasonableness of state's efforts and historical context)
- N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597 (Alaska 2001) (preservation of court discretion in evaluating active efforts)
- Audrey H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 66 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2003) (consideration of OCS history in reasonable efforts)